Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on April 23, 2013, 04:54:26 PM
-
Police Ordering Families Out Of Their Homes At Gunpoint... This video shows that it was house after house done like that and not just one.
The more friendly searches we saw on that first day were most likely filmed for official media release by a government agency.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
In the video, one of the "victims" says "They were doing the right thing".. In breaking news, a Fox News poll reports
"Virtually all voters -- 91 percent -- approve of law enforcement’s handling of the Boston bombings"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/23/fox-news-poll-after-boston-most-approve-government-on-terrorism/#ixzz2RKyx66pW
-
,hey,hey we don't deal with facts here
-
Murica is going to shit. Post modern society is a farce anyway. Shit like this is more consistent with all of mankind's history.
-
In the video, one of the "victims" says "They were doing the right thing".. In breaking news, a Fox News poll reports
"Virtually all voters -- 91 percent -- approve of law enforcement’s handling of the Boston bombings"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/23/fox-news-poll-after-boston-most-approve-government-on-terrorism/#ixzz2RKyx66pW
so what?
if one of them said they didnt do the right thing would that change your mind?
the majority wanted obamacare repealed, does that matter to you?
illegal search is illegal search no matter if the person being searched is ok with it or not.
-
,hey,hey we don't deal with facts here
LOL, the fact that most people support this? Yea, we already got that part haha... ::) I sure in the hell never attempted to dispute that.
-
In the video, one of the "victims" says "They were doing the right thing".. In breaking news, a Fox News poll reports
"Virtually all voters -- 91 percent -- approve of law enforcement’s handling of the Boston bombings"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/23/fox-news-poll-after-boston-most-approve-government-on-terrorism/#ixzz2RKyx66pW
LMAO...
I wonder what % of people who were manhandled liked it?
I mean, it's easy for some fat slob in Idaho to be okay with it.
-
LMAO...
I wonder what % of people who were manhandled liked it?
I mean, it's easy for some fat slob in Idaho to be okay with it.
I think a majority of the people who had their homes searched like that were ok with it. I personally find that fact disturbing but probably true.
But public approval of it definitely isn't the point behind posting threads like this anyway...
-
I think a majority of the people who had their homes searched like that were ok with it. I personally find that fact disturbing but probably true.
But public approval of it definitely isn't the point behind posting threads like this anyway...
We are conditioned to accept literally anything at this point.
-
LMAO...
I wonder what % of people who were manhandled liked it?
I mean, it's easy for some fat slob in Idaho to be okay with it.
i guess you missed when the police were leaving the area all the residents cheering them on, again let's not let the facts get in the way :D
-
i guess you missed when the police were leaving the area all the residents cheering them on, again let's not let the facts get in the way :D
guess that makes illegal search ok then yea?
-
i guess you missed when the police were leaving the area all the residents cheering them on, again let's not let the facts get in the way :D
I'm pretty sure nobody missed that display.
-
In the video, one of the "victims" says "They were doing the right thing".. In breaking news, a Fox News poll reports
"Virtually all voters -- 91 percent -- approve of law enforcement’s handling of the Boston bombings"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/23/fox-news-poll-after-boston-most-approve-government-on-terrorism/#ixzz2RKyx66pW
What meaning would you hope to take from this, 007?
-
guess that makes illegal search ok then yea?
that's not illegal search
-
90% of Germans believed that the Nazi party was a good thing too...
-
These people all helped elect Obama....same people that would vote down the 2nd Amendment and allow other people to take away their rights. These are not the same people that fought at Bunker Hill. This has bothered me since it happened. The individual police officer's were doing their jobs but those at the top knew how fucking wrong it was running combat patrols with MRAPS through US streets. This has become normal......Obama was just a few years to early trying to take our guns. A few more years and a few million worthless, illiterate's from south of the border and it will all be over. I think alot of u lib bastards will wake up and realize what you did to this country was wrong and that over the space of 8 years you destroyed the greatest experiment in world history.
-
90% of Germans believed that the Nazi party was a good thing too...
And at the end you couldn't find a one that knew what was going on.
-
And at the end you couldn't find a one that knew what was going on.
Bingo x 100
-
Those that suffered damages should sue.
-
Hard to sue for Constitutional violations...but I hope somebody beyond friggen infowars starts talking this up.
-
Hard to sue for Constitutional violations...but I hope somebody beyond friggen infowars starts talking this up.
Please go into detail.
-
the problem is nobody's constitutional rights were violated
-
How are you going to sue after the fact. If the cops broke something and you have proof, sure. What they did feels so absolutely wrong. It looked wrong and to me violated Constitutional rights but the cops are going to say that public safety overroad that. I'm not a lawyer but 3 could tell you chapter and verse on both sides I'm sure.
-
the problem is nobody's constitutional rights were violated
If someone could show that they were subjected to unreasonable search, I'd say you're wrong.
-
Exigent circumstance in United States law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Exigent circumstances)
Jump to: navigation, search
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]
Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.[2]
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.[4] In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.[5]
-
the problem is nobody's constitutional rights were violated
The scumbag was bleeding out in a boat in the backyard while homeowers were in lockdown and a state of terror
-
How are you going to sue after the fact. If the cops broke something and you have proof, sure. What they did feels so absolutely wrong. It looked wrong and to me violated Constitutional rights but the cops are going to say that public safety overroad that. I'm not a lawyer but 3 could tell you chapter and verse on both sides I'm sure.
That's why they refer to it as damage, yes. That's the point.
-
the problem is nobody's constitutional rights were violated
Look I know full well that your a gun grabbing police state lib so I'm sure it looked wonderful. I'm also sure you would have prefered that it was West Virginians or Texans instead of my fellow blue state massholes, getting pulled out by the velcro commando's.
-
Exigent circumstance in United States law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Exigent circumstances)
Jump to: navigation, search
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]
Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.[2]
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.[4] In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.[5]
Thank you for proving my point.
-
That's why they refer to it as damage, yes. That's the point.
I think his point is that that's just about as far as your grounds for complaining go. If they broke your china, okay they'll replace it. If they violated your constitutional rights you're shit out of luck.
-
These people all helped elect Obama....same people that would vote down the 2nd Amendment and allow other people to take away their rights. These are not the same people that fought at Bunker Hill. This has bothered me since it happened. The individual police officer's were doing their jobs but those at the top knew how fucking wrong it was running combat patrols with MRAPS through US streets. This has become normal......Obama was just a few years to early trying to take our guns. A few more years and a few million worthless, illiterate's from south of the border and it will all be over. I think alot of u lib bastards will wake up and realize what you did to this country was wrong and that over the space of 8 years you destroyed the greatest experiment in world history.
excellent post!!!!!.
I do think conservatives have a little responsibility in this. They watched while the neoconservatives pushed forth the building blocks to all the crap we're seeing now. A few like Pat Buchanan publically opposed it but not many. The neoconservatives in what they did under Bush is partly what made if possible for Obama to become president. People like me wouldn't have been voting for Obama in that first term otherwise. McCain was seen at the time as a natural course to keep the progression of what Bush did going. But as we see now, Obama failed in all his promises in this area and not only continued the path but hit the fast forward button!
-
Look dude....we did this in Iraq. We ran patrols and kicked doors. We grabbed people in much the same manner..guess what, I don't care now, didn't care then. The only reason to ever care was that you didn't want to make more enemies so you used restraint. The cops doing the searches, especially on the video treated American citizens exactly like Iraqi's The other thing..many of the Iraqi's were douchbag terrorist sympathizers. I doubt that many citizens of watertown Mass are chechen sympathizers...or could find it on a map.
-
I think his point is that that's just about as far as your grounds for complaining go. If they broke your china, okay they'll replace it. If they violated your constitutional rights you're shit out of luck.
I think this would be an ideal situation to explore that.
-
excellent post!!!!!.
I do think conservatives have a little responsibility in this. They watched while the neoconservatives pushed forth the building blocks to all the crap we're seeing now. A few like Pat Buchanan publically opposed it but not many. The neoconservatives in what they did under Bush is partly what made if possible for Obama to become president. People like me wouldn't have been voting for Obama in that first term otherwise. McCain was seen at the time as a natural course to keep the progression of what Bush did going. But as we see now, Obama failed in all his promises in this area and not only continued the neocon path but hit the fast forward button!
The Patriot Act was the slippery slope. Bush used to make sure we could kill douchebags. Obama is and will use it to control the population. I will never again even hint that I'm for such things. I'm all for the things we do overseas to keep us safe....all the "black" things we do. All the things hinted at under Bush. Obama uses drones and fights an open war that makes us look even worse then we did under Bush.
-
Thank you for proving my point.
better read it again
-
excellent post!!!!!.
I do think conservatives have a little responsibility in this. They watched while the neoconservatives pushed forth the building blocks to all the crap we're seeing now. A few like Pat Buchanan publically opposed it but not many. The neoconservatives in what they did under Bush is partly what made if possible for Obama to become president. People like me wouldn't have been voting for Obama in that first term otherwise. McCain was seen at the time as a natural course to keep the progression of what Bush did going. But as we see now, Obama failed in all his promises in this area and not only continued the path but hit the fast forward button!
I'm torn on some of it about Iraq. Ive seen and heard enough about them getting wmds out to Syria..who knows. But mainly because I believe that muslims are the number one threat to the West and that given time they might have done much worse here or in Europe then 911. If there was no flame to draw them in, the best and brightest would still be alive. We've killed so many of them. Set them back so far.
-
better read it again
Please explain what you think I missed.
-
excellent post!!!!!.
I do think conservatives have a little responsibility in this. They watched while the neoconservatives pushed forth the building blocks to all the crap we're seeing now. A few like Pat Buchanan publically opposed it but not many. The neoconservatives in what they did under Bush is partly what made if possible for Obama to become president. People like me wouldn't have been voting for Obama in that first term otherwise. McCain was seen at the time as a natural course to keep the progression of what Bush did going. But as we see now, Obama failed in all his promises in this area and not only continued the path but hit the fast forward button!
Agreed 100 percent Xs infinity + 1 billion.
-
Please explain what you think I missed.
explain where it proves your point ???
-
explain where it proves your point ???
The entire body of it proves the point. Are you suggesting that I must have missed something?
-
i must be confusing your point,what was your point again
-
By the way, this should have been handled by simply speaking with the resident, asking the person to step outside (to be sure he or she wasn't under threat). That's it.
Unless there is a distinct reason to believe the subject is in a particular location, there is NO reason to violate private space. NONE.
-
i must be confusing your point,what was your point again
::) ::) ::)
;D
-
By the way, this should have been handled by simply speaking with the resident, asking the person to step outside (to be sure he or she wasn't under threat). That's it.
Unless there is a distinct reason to believe the subject is in a particular location, there is NO reason to violate private space. NONE.
that would work great if only one person there,but if they ask one person to come who's to say they're not inside with a gun to the head of their wife or child
-
that would work great if only one person there,but if they ask one person to come who's to say they're not inside with a gun to the head of their wife or child
Blacken, that's why the person is asked to step outside as an alternative to a search.
-
"Virtually all voters -- 91 percent -- approve of law enforcement’s handling of the Boston bombings"
I would not believe polls if it came from Fox or CNN. Have you validated their polls? Did you personally call up people and asked their opinion? They could tell you anything or grab a number out of the air. Polls are a fucking joke!
-
Blacken, that's why the person is asked to step outside as an alternative to a search.
if you pull me outside and ask me if everything is alright and i know some fucker has a gun to my child's head ready to pull the trigger,what do you think i'm going to tell you
-
if you pull me outside and ask me if everything is alright and i know some fucker has a gun to my child's head ready to pull the trigger,what do you think i'm going to tell you
I think your behavior will indicate a condition that would legally warrant entry.
-
I think this would be an ideal situation to explore that.
BTW, I'd imagine this will cause all valid claims to be quickly and generously handled.
-
I think your behavior will indicate a legal condition that would warrant entry.
according to this site were lucky if the cops can walk and and talk at the same time,let alone judge behavioral habits ;D
-
according to this site were lucky if the cops can walk and and talk at the same time,let alone judge behavioral habits ;D
lol..they're terrible, I know (cops, I mean :D).
-
of course, because daddy standing there holding his 2 year old is so scary suspicious ::)
-
How are you going to sue after the fact. If the cops broke something and you have proof, sure. What they did feels so absolutely wrong. It looked wrong and to me violated Constitutional rights but the cops are going to say that public safety overroad that. I'm not a lawyer but 3 could tell you chapter and verse on both sides I'm sure.
Agreed.
People are so quick to just hand over their privacy for security... It seems so wrong.
It's like we just hand our liberty over while applauding. I don't know wtf is going on with people today.
-
I wonder how widespread the problem of undue entry was, and whether there was a pattern with particular commanders, etc.
-
I hope there are a lot of settlements, and the local media picks it up.
-
That guy with the boat is fucked since most insurance polices have a terrorism exlusion.
-
that's not illegal search
for the record... banging on a door, ordering the family out of the house and then searching the house, with no direct cause, is absolutely an illegal search unless martial law is declared... oops sorry, I meant unless shelter in place, is declared. ::)
-
That guy with the boat is fucked since most insurance polices have a terrorism exlusion.
They have a fund going where they will be distributing money to those who were effected. A boat replacement will be one of the smaller bills on this list.
-
for the record... banging on a door, ordering the family out of the house and then searching the house, with no direct cause, is absolutely an illegal search unless martial law is declared... oops sorry, I meant unless shelter in place, is declared. ::)
that's not what the real lawyers are saying,but your entitled to your own opinion but you can't state it as actually fact. sorry
-
so what?
if one of them said they didnt do the right thing would that change your mind?
the majority wanted obamacare repealed, does that matter to you?
illegal search is illegal search no matter if the person being searched is ok with it or not.
There are exceptions to the search warrant as you likely know. But I'll play along.. for the sake of argument. Bad guy runs into the house and tells family. If you tell police I'm here I will kill little becky. Police knock on door and dad answers..
Police - Is the bad guy in your house?
Dad- No, no bad guys here
Police- Ok, thanks, enjoy your dinner
Bad guy kills family to cover his escape.
Next day half of this board would be on here talking about how incompetent the cops were for NOT clearing the houses and leaving those poor citizens at the mercy of the bomber...
-
However - they missed the boat in open plainview sight w blood on it.
-
90% of Germans believed that the Nazi party was a good thing too...
Just kills you doesn't it... you can't plead "I don't hate all cops" when you take stands like this.. you are a cop hater Tu... that's ok, you must have your reasons, but please stop pretending you are an average citizen who thinks rationally and open minded.
-
The cops need to be placed into a situation where they are made to answer for each incident where they chose to enter a particular residence without first gaining consent.
For future reference, we need to know the reasoning, and they need to explain.
Would anyone disagree?
-
Just kills you doesn't it... you can't plead "I don't hate all cops" when you take stands like this.. you are a cop hater Tu... that's ok, you must have your reasons, but please stop pretending you are an average citizen who thinks rationally and open minded.
Not at all. What part of my statement was incorrect?
I make a factual statement about Germany not even 80 years ago and you decide that makes me a "cop hater"?
Puh lease.
-
There are exceptions to the search warrant as you likely know. But I'll play along.. for the sake of argument. Bad guy runs into the house and tells family. If you tell police I'm here I will kill little becky. Police knock on door and dad answers..
Police - Is the bad guy in your house?
Dad- No, no bad guys here
Police- Ok, thanks, enjoy your dinner
Bad guy kills family to cover his escape.
Next day half of this board would be on here talking about how incompetent the cops were for NOT clearing the houses and leaving those poor citizens at the mercy of the bomber...
So, what makes you think if the cops went barging in under your hypothetical that the gunman wouldn't open up and kill everyone or try to?
-
lol american media. haha. i dont trust any of it. all bullshit
-
GTA Boston
-
However - they missed the boat in open plainview sight w blood on it.
From what I understand, the boat was outside the 20 block perimeter they searched. So it isn't like they searched the house where to boat was and didn't bother to search the boat.
-
Police Ordering Families Out Of Their Homes At Gunpoint... This video shows that it was house after house done like that and not just one.
The more friendly searches we saw on that first day were most likely filmed for official media release by a government agency.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
WTF?!!! Am I in the Twilight Zone?
@~20 sec in: "Each time they rescued a family at the point of a gun"? WTF? ???
I must have a completely different dictionary or something. ::) 'Each time they rescued a family'...
If the stakes weren't so high, ...this would be absolutely downright comical. All I can say is Good Luck. :'(
-
The cops need to be placed into a situation where they are made to answer for each incident where they chose to enter a particular residence without first gaining consent.
For future reference, we need to know the reasoning, and they need to explain.
Would anyone disagree?
YES
There's absulutly no accountability though. Same deal with Tasers.
-
haha....had a feeling he would cower from my question.
And I doubt there's any significant empirical evidence to support one scenario over the other.
Seems you would want the default position to be for respecting rights.
-
haha....had a feeling he would cower from my question.
And I doubt there's any significant empirical evidence to support one scenario over the other.
Seems you would want the default position to be for respecting rights.
I would think public safety would be of concern to you
-
haha....had a feeling he would cower from my question.
And I doubt there's any significant empirical evidence to support one scenario over the other.
Seems you would want the default position to be for respecting rights.
He avoids these questions because in reality, he wants to have more power than you. He just doesn't want you to know it.
He doesn't want to admit that he thinks he is above you because he carries a badge.
It's disgraceful.
-
He avoids these questions because in reality, he wants to have more power than you. He just doesn't want you to know it.
He doesn't want to admit that he thinks he is above you because he carries a badge.
It's disgraceful.
Yes, it would be disgraceful, if any of that were true.. It's only reality in your head Tu ::)
-
so what?
if one of them said they didnt do the right thing would that change your mind?
the majority wanted obamacare repealed, does that matter to you?
illegal search is illegal search no matter if the person being searched is ok with it or not.
I agree with that... were they conducting illegal searches?
-
So, what makes you think if the cops went barging in under your hypothetical that the gunman wouldn't open up and kill everyone or try to?
Nothing makes me think that.. When deciding a course of action I would imagine they would weigh the pros and cons of doing nothing verses attempting to locate the bad guy who may be in one of the houses. Apparently they felt it was more prudent to clear the houses rather than not. Sometimes in these situations all your options carry some risk. You have to decide which is the least amount
-
Yes, it would be disgraceful, if any of that were true.. It's only reality in your head Tu ::)
You have already stated that your right to shoot me overrides my right to shoot you.
On numerous occasions you have either stated OR avoided questions regarding the public vs. the police.
You ALWAYS side with the Police... I have actually sided with citizenry and police in different instances.
In your mind Police Power > Citizens
-
You have already stated that your right to shoot me overrides my right to shoot you.
On numerous occasions you have either stated OR avoided questions regarding the public vs. the police.
You ALWAYS side with the Police... I have actually sided with citizenry and police in different instances.
In your mind Police Power > Citizens
I don't ALWAYS side with the police, that's just what you want to believe. And if it makes you feel superior thinking that, have at it buddy.
-
I don't ALWAYS side with the police, that's just what you want to believe. And if it makes you feel superior thinking that, have at it buddy.
Where are your statements stating so?
Name one topic we have discussed here where you flat out said, "The police were WRONG."
You can't do that... You always have some mitigating circumstance or caveat.
You have NEVER plainly said, THOSE POLICE WERE WRONG.
NEVER.
You skirt the issue and sidestep constantly.
-
Where are your statements stating so?
Name one topic we have discussed here where you flat out said, "The police were WRONG."
You can't do that... You always have some mitigating circumstance or caveat.
You have NEVER plainly said, THOSE POLICE WERE WRONG.
NEVER.
You skirt the issue and sidestep constantly.
Got this qoute from the police state thread... just a quick check and located this. I know there are more instances like it.
"The cop was very professional in his demeanor, I'll give him that. The yard issue is irrelevant though it weighs in the citizens favor. For example, I can chase a bad guy, tackle him in your front yard, and be handcuffing him. You can be in your own yard, looking over my shoulder, and I would be right in telling you to get back if I felt exposed to you while performing my job of arresting the individual.
IN this particular case, reviewing the tape, arrest would not be the likely result in most cases. If an officer felt concerned they may ask to frisk the person for weapons before continuing if the person refused to leave the immediate area of the activity. They may position an officer in an "overwatch" position to keep the bystanders in observation. In this case the citizen was in error by refusing the officers request, but the officer was also in error by resorting to arrest to solve the safety concern. "
-
When I have time, I will go through more and post them if you really believe I have never said a cop is wrong. But here's what will happen if you hold true to your nature... I'll post them, you will come up with some reason why they don't count, then quickly move on to another rabbit trail.... ::)
-
Got this qoute from the police state thread... just a quick check and located this. I know there are more instances like it.
"The cop was very professional in his demeanor, I'll give him that. The yard issue is irrelevant though it weighs in the citizens favor. For example, I can chase a bad guy, tackle him in your front yard, and be handcuffing him. You can be in your own yard, looking over my shoulder, and I would be right in telling you to get back if I felt exposed to you while performing my job of arresting the individual.
IN this particular case, reviewing the tape, arrest would not be the likely result in most cases. If an officer felt concerned they may ask to frisk the person for weapons before continuing if the person refused to leave the immediate area of the activity. They may position an officer in an "overwatch" position to keep the bystanders in observation. In this case the citizen was in error by refusing the officers request, but the officer was also in error by resorting to arrest to solve the safety concern. "
As I just said, you sidestepped the issue completely.
You didn't on any level just plainly say, yes... the cop was wrong.
You mitigated the circumstance and then skirted an actual statement saying the police were wrong.
Hell, it even sounds like you're making up excuses.
So what was your post supposed to prove? That I'm correct in my assessment of you?
-
As I just said, you sidestepped the issue completely.
You didn't on any level just plainly say, yes... the cop was wrong.
You mitigated the circumstance and then skirted an actual statement saying the police were wrong.
Hell, it even sounds like you're making up excuses.
So what was your post supposed to prove? That I'm correct in my assessment of you?
You threw down the guantlet.. I'll gladly pick it up. If I post 6 instances where I disagreed with the police, didn't side with them like you say I ALWAYS do, which is 6 more than you say exists, what happens then? I'll wager you if I find 6, I don't know, you owe me $100 or you can leave Getbig for 30 days, if I can't find 6, I'll leave for 30 days or send you $100
Sound like a bet?
-
You threw down the guantlet.. I'll gladly pick it up. If I post 6 instances where I disagreed with the police, didn't side with them like you say I ALWAYS do, which is 6 more than you say exists, what happens then? I'll wager you if I find 6, I don't know, you owe me $100 or you can leave Getbig for 30 days, if I can't find 6, I'll leave for 30 days or send you $100
Sound like a bet?
First off... I will be happy to bet you 30 days away from getbig. It's not like it's that big a deal to me either way, with the caveat that you ABSOLUTELY PLAINLY STATE. "THE COPS WERE WRONG" on 10 different instances. None of this bullshit you type out where you give all of these if, buts, and shit like that.
You wanna step to that bet?
I have no problem leaving getbig for the next 30 days because I have tons of other shit to do with my life.
You think that's even a wager?
-
First off... I will be happy to bet you 30 days away from getbig. It's not like it's that big a deal to me either way, with the caveat that you ABSOLUTELY PLAINLY STATE. "THE COPS WERE WRONG" on 10 different instances. None of this bullshit you type out where you give all of these if, buts, and shit like that.
You wanna step to that bet?
I have no problem leaving getbig for the next 30 days because I have tons of other shit to do with my life.
You think that's even a wager?
Figured you would back out... to find 6 instances that you'll accept as saying "THE COPS WERE WRONG" and now its 10 different instances? It looks like you are admitting you lied when you said there wasn't ONE. If I locate even 1, that should be enough to show you were wrong , do you disagree?
Obviously we would need an independant opinion as to whether I was saying the cops were wrong in a particular post because we can't obviously trust you now can we..
-
Figured you would back out... to find 6 instances that you'll accept as saying "THE COPS WERE WRONG" and now its 10 different instances? It looks like you are admitting you lied when you said there wasn't ONE. If I locate even 1, that should be enough to show you were wrong , do you disagree?
Obviously we would need an independant opinion as to whether I was saying the cops were wrong in a particular post because we can't obviously trust you now can we..
Wait. You're saying I backed out?
Fuck... Can you even find 6 instances? I highly doubt it... and again, it must be plainly said that they were WRONG, not the shit you always do where you post mitigation constantly.
You always have some "reason".
I use my real name on here, I'm easily found, I'm not anonymous... You think you are more trustworthy than I am?
-
Wait. You're saying I backed out?
Fuck... Can you even find 6 instances? I highly doubt it... and again, it must be plainly said that they were WRONG, not the shit you always do where you post mitigation constantly.
You always have some "reason".
I use my real name on here, I'm easily found, I'm not anonymous... You think you are more trustworthy than I am?
I don't think that at all. And I will find 6 instances.
-
#1
"Jack, the question is loaded to a certain extent. I don't agree they are widely despised and distrusted. I've seen local polls that back me up. I'd be living in a dream world if I wasn't aware that there are people that despise and distrust the police. In my opinion, some of them have reason to feel that way because of personal experiences they have had. When I was 16 I had a horrible experience with a small town police department that disgusted me. Completely unprofessional and abusive. Then there are those who have grown up in a culture that distrusts and hates police, and while they have no personal experience one way or the other, they hate the police. Then there are people wired to dislike authority of any kind. Parents, police, teachers, government etc. Not a thing you can do to change their minds.
I don't think the police did themselves any favors over the last 50 yrs as far as building trust. It seems everytime we take a step foward, some moron with a badge sets up back 10 yrs.
-
#2
"Dude, did you even read my post? Baggie are often times shoved down butt cracks and under testicles. females carry them in their panties. More likely than a cavity search on the side of the rode, it was verifying there were no drugs hidden in those areas. Regardless, the act was in poor judgment, likely violated their policy and should be stopped. It is intrusive and in my opinion, highly offensive. "
-
#3 Posted by 333
Trooper Accused of Stealing from Victim of Fatal Crash [CT]
www.nbcconnecticut.com ^ | Thursday, Nov 29, 2012 | Updated 2:48 PM EST | Staff
Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:59:44 PM
A 43-year-old state trooper has been charged with larceny, accused of stealing jewelry and cash from the victim of a fatal crash on Route 15 in Fairfield on Sept. 22.
Trooper Aaron Huntsman, an 18-year veteran of the department, has been suspended from the department, according to state police.
Police began investigating when the victim’s family determined that jewelry, clothing and cash were missing, state police said.
The Connecticut Post is reporting that Huntsman is accused of stealing $3,000 in cash and a gold chain from the victim's body.
The family obtained the victim’s clothes from the hospital, but were not able to find jewelry.
As State Police investigated, they determined that no jewelry was logged into evidence and a large amount of cash was found in the trooper’s police cruiser.
Police obtained an arrest warrant on Wednesday charging Huntsman with two counts of third-degree larceny, interfering with police and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Police arrested Huntsman on Thursday.
He was released after posting a $5,000 bond and will be arraigned in Superior Court GA #2 Bridgeport on Dec. 10.
According to the state Web site, Huntsman's state police salary is $80,000 and he made almost $112,000 in 2011.
My Response
Life in prison should about do it.. in gen pop
-
So far I accept 2 and 3.
1 is your typical deflection.
-
Man Loses $22,000 In New 'Policing For Profit' Case
Posted: May 09, 2012 9:52 AM EDT
Affidavit from $22,000 seizure in Monterey
By Phil Williams
Chief Investigative Reporter
MONTEREY, Tenn. -- "If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America."
That was the reaction of a New Jersey man who found out just how risky it can be to carry cash through Tennessee.
For more than a year, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has been shining a light on a practice that some call "policing for profit."
See previous stories:
"NC5 Investigates: Policing For Profit"
In this latest case, a Monterey police officer took $22,000 off the driver -- even though he had committed no crime.
"You live in the United States, you think you have rights -- and apparently you don't," said George Reby.
As a professional insurance adjuster, Reby spends a lot of time traveling from state to state. But it was on a trip to a conference in Nashville last January that he got a real education in Tennessee justice.
"I never had any clue that they thought they could take my money legally," Reby added. "I didn't do anything wrong."
Reby was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County, when he was stopped for speeding.
A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash.
"I said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."
That's when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion that it was drug money.
"Why didn't you arrest him?" we asked Bates.
"Because he hadn't committed a criminal law," the officer answered.
Bates said the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason to be suspicious.
"The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," he explained. "He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it's safer."
"But it's not illegal to carry cash," we noted.
"No, it's not illegal to carry cash," Bates said. "Again, it's what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for."
NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?"
"And he couldn't prove it was legitimate," Bates insisted.
Bates is part of a system that, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has discovered, gives Tennessee police agencies the incentive to take cash off of out-of-state drivers. If they don't come back to fight for their money, the agency gets to keep it all.
"This is a taking without due process," said Union City attorney John Miles.
A former Texas prosecutor and chairman of the Obion County Tea Party, Miles has seen similar cases in his area.
He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard.
That's why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case.
"It wouldn't have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I'm not to hear from you -- by statute," Miles added.
George Reby said that he told Monterey officers that "I had active bids on EBay, that I was trying to buy a vehicle. They just didn't want to hear it."
In fact, Reby had proof on his computer.
But the Monterey officer drew up a damning affidavit, citing his own training that "common people do not carry this much U.S. currency."
Read Officer Bates' affidavit
"On the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two ounces of cocaine," Bates told NewsChannel 5 Investigates.
"Or the money could have been used to buy a car," we observed.
"It's possible," he admitted.
NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Bates if Reby had told him that he was trying to buy a car?
"He did," the officer acknowledged.
"But you did not include that in your report," we noted.
"If it's not in there, I didn't put it in there."
So why did he leave that out?
"I don't know," the officer said.
Bates also told the judge the money was hidden inside "a tool bag underneath trash to [deter] law enforcement from locating it."
"That's inaccurate," Reby said. "I pulled out the bag and gave it to him."
And even though there was no proof that Reby was involved in anything illegal, Bates' affidavit portrays him as a man with a criminal history that included an arrest for possession of cocaine.
That was 20-some years ago," the New Jersey man insisted.
"Were you convicted?" we wanted to know.
"No, I wasn't convicted," he answered.
But Officer Bates says that arrest -- which he acknowledged was old -- was still part of the calculation to take Reby's money.
"Am I going to use it? Yes, I'm going to use it because he's been charged with it in the past -- regardless of whether it's 10 or 15 years ago," he said.
Attorney John Miles said he's frustrated with attitudes toward Tennessee's civil forfeiture laws, which make such practices legal.
"We are entitled not to be deprived of our property without due process of law, both under the Tennessee Constitution and the federal Constitution -- and nobody cares," Miles said.
"Nobody cares."
This year, state lawmakers debated a bill to create a special committee to investigate these "policing for profit" issues. That bill died in the last days of the legislative session.
After Reby filed an appeal, and after NewsChannel 5 began investigating, the state agreed to return his money -- if he'd sign a statement waiving his constitutional rights and promising not to sue.
They also made him come all the way from New Jersey, back to Monterey to pick up a check.
He got the check, but no apology.
"If they lied about everything in the report, why would they apologize?" Reby said.
And, with that, he was ready to put Tennessee in his rearview mirror.
"I really don't want to come back here," he said.
As for the appeals process, Reby was able to provide us and the state with letters from his employers, showing that he had a legitimate source of income.
It took him four months to get his money back, but it usually takes a lot longer for most people.
And that, Miles said, works to the benefit of the police.
He had two clients where police agreed to drop the cases in exchange for a cut of the money -- $1,000 in one case, $2,000 in another. In both cases, that was less than what they might have paid in attorney fees.
Miles called that "extortion."
E-mail: pwilliams@newschannel5.com
My response
Sounds like extortion to me
-
I'll find some more later but remember recently someone posted a video of a cop and a citizen by a car? The cop originally claimed the guy tried to run over him and charged him with a felony. A camera caught the episode and the cop lied?
I recall saying that the cop should get the same amount of time in prison that the citizen would have gotten had he been convicted..
-
Actually Agnostic sounds like a fairly reasonable cop to me. He's been honest when I've asked him questions curious about shit. I don't think he's right about some of the stuff he says but that's just the nature of it all and why we make points back and forth on a board like this.
-
My response
Sounds like extortion to me
Hadn't you been aware of cash seizures like this, 007, where there was absolutely no indication of wrongdoing?
-
Hadn't you been aware of cash seizures like this, 007, where there was absolutely no indication of wrongdoing?
those fuckers in Tennessee are out of control. There's a zillion cases going on where they just rob people of their cash and leave it up to them to prove it was honest money. That's so assbackward from the constitution Bugs Bunny should cut them out of the states next. But that kind of crap is going on all over unfortunately and the feds are getting in on it too. Cha ching...
-
those fuckers in Tennessee are out of control. There's a zillion cases going on where they just rob people of their cash and leave it up to them to prove it was honest money. That's so assbackward from the constitution Bugs Bunny should cut them out of the states next. But that kind of crap is going on all over unfortunately and the feds are getting in on it too. Cha ching...
It's all over the place, Hugo. It is fucked. There's a method among cops, where they'll actually follow drugs into the country in order to seize the cash on the way out. It is absolutely crazy, and barely a word said about it.
-
Cash seizure is huge business. Innocent people left and right have had their life savings stolen by police, and it's only getting worse.
-
Cash seizure is huge business. Innocent people left and right have had their life savings stolen by police, and it's only getting worse.
The fact that there were instant cases of corruption when the practice first started should have been an indication that it was a really bad idea. But here we are today.
-
The fact that there were instant cases of corruption when the practice first started should have been an indication that it was a really bad idea. But here we are today.
It's heartbreaking to think of good people who have lost their life savings to police theft, and no longer have the power to fight back.
But I'll tell you, when it comes to cops sneaking after drug money, it is a clear-as-day, UNDENIABLE link showing an incentive to allow drugs into the country. Flat out.
-
Actually Agnostic sounds like a fairly reasonable cop to me. He's been honest when I've asked him questions curious about shit. I don't think he's right about some of the stuff he says but that's just the nature of it all and why we make points back and forth on a board like this.
Appreciate that Hugo. I don't think any of us expect everyone to agree with us all the time. For me, even though I don't agree with everything everyone says here all the time, that doesn't mean I don't learn something from it. It's good to see things from different perspectives.
-
Hadn't you been aware of cash seizures like this, 007, where there was absolutely no indication of wrongdoing?
I've seen things on 20/20 about cases like this and it just makes me sick
-
#6
"Glad you brought it up. During SXSW an event that brings in thousands of people from around the country, officers were placed on 12 hr shifts in various barricaded street locations on static posts. This officer violated policy by watching a DVD while on duty posted at a barricade. An unprofessional, stupid thing to do and he will likely be suspended for it when all is said and done. They pay us a lot, they expect a lot, and this officer did not meet the Departments expectations nor the public."
-
#7
In futile car search for drugs, Pompton Lakes police inflict $12K worth of damage (Asset Forfieture)
NJ.com ^ | December 29, 2011 | James Queally
When Pompton Lakes police seized Darren Richardson’s car on a rainy September afternoon, they told him it was headed for an impound lot. When they returned it three weeks later, he says, the 2004 BMW belonged in a junk yard.
The instrument cluster and leather dashboard were gone. The caramel-colored seats were torn up. The gear shift was ripped out and stray wires hung limp everywhere. Geico, Richardson’s insurance company estimated the damage at $12,636.42 — more than he paid for the car — and declared the vehicle a "total loss."
According to police reports, the damage to the black BMW 325i came in the aftermath of a traffic stop during which officers detected a "strong odor of raw marijuana" inside the vehicle. Searching for a cache of drugs, members of three different police agencies and a detective from a federal drug task force spent two days tearing the car apart, the reports said.
So what did police find after their $12,000 search?
Absolutely nothing.
Richardson, 28, of the Haskell section of Wanaque, filed a notice of claim against the department last week, seeking damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution. He also said Geico may sue the department to recoup the cost of the claim it has already paid to Richardson.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for him, hope he wins plus damages
-
#8
That cop really is a sadistic bully.
What these power craven union thugs in the pd don't grasp is that it is crap like this that will make those on the fence feel sympathy for some of these kids.
Maybe the next time this thug cop writes some bogus ticket or makes a false arrest to boost his bloated OT and pension, maybe, just, maybe, for once someone will pepper spray this thug till he coughes up blood.
"It's been our experience in dealing with similar protests that pepper spray is not the answer. The better option is to explain that they have to move, explain what will happen if they don't then calmly and methodically remove each person one by one. Had they skipped the pepper spray, it would have ended the same"
-
#9
This story is on all our news stations today. Also included cigarettes and slot machines.
"Yep. Glad they got caught. Apparently their internal affairs got wind of it and followed up. Good for them. I hate bad cops"
-
#10
MIDDLESEX ——
Sheriff Guy L. Abbott was indicted Thursday on 25 felony criminal counts that include embezzlement and bribery following a nearly two-year investigation.
Abbott was arrested on the charges Thursday and processed at the Peninsula Regional Jail in James City County, said Brian Gottstein, spokesman for the Virginia Office of the Attorney General. Abbott was released on a personal recognizance bond.
A special grand jury that began meeting earlier this year in the basement of the Gloucester County Courthouse indicted Abbott on 18 counts of misuse or misappropriation of public assets, four counts of embezzlement and three counts of bribery. The crimes are alleged to have occurred from 2000 through 2008, Gottstein said.
Abbott declined to comment under advice of his attorney.
Abbott was elected to the office of Middlesex County Sheriff in 1999 and was sworn in on Jan. 1, 2000. He has continued in his capacity as Middlesex Sheriff throughout the investigation that's spanned nearly two years.
The Attorney General's Office authorized a criminal investigation of Abbott in November 2009 and his office was raided in March 2010. Affidavits filed in courts in York, James City and Chesapeake have sought Abbott's emails from a Gmail account, records of purchases with a credit card he used as sheriff and other documents.
Some search warrants and other documents related to the cased that have been filed in Middlesex Circuit Court remain sealed.
Affidavits filed in other courts by Jennifer S. Brown, special agent accountant for the Virginia State Police, list crimes related to the investigation as embezzlement, embezzlement by officers of public or other funds and other charges.
Abbott's first appearance in Middlesex County Circuit Court will be Sept. 7 at 9:30 a.m. Abbott has filed for re-election this year and is being challenged by three other candidates.
"Glad to see an example of the system working when a criminal in uniform is uncovered and indicted..."
"
-
#11
You:
Unbelievable!
The guy had his liberty removed and got shot, yet it was totally justified?!
Where's Agnostic to tell us how it makes perfect sense?
Me:
"Got no problem with taking the liberty away from a wife beater. Having said that, any subject in the back seat of the patrol car should have already been searched prior to putting him in. It's SOP and if the officer still thought the subject was armed then he did not think he did a good search the first time. I have a problem with the officer who could have killed a person needlessly because of poor procedure.
-
#12
333:
ITS CALLED DISCRETION
Me:
or common sense..those cops had neither.. I'm embarrassed...
-
#13
Police in Ga. shut down girls' lemonade stand
AP News ^ | 07/15/2011 | AP News
Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 3:49:27 PM by The Magical Mischief Tour
MIDWAY, Ga. (AP) -- Police in Georgia have shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls trying to save up for a trip to a water park, saying they didn't have a business license or the required permits.
Midway Police Chief Kelly Morningstar says police also didn't know how the lemonade was made, who made it or what was in it.
The girls had been operating for one day when Morningstar and another officer cruised by.
The girls needed a business license, peddler's permit and food permit to operate, even on residential property. The permits cost $50 a day or $180 per year.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Well uh..the cops...uh...there is an ordinance..uh....the girls should have...uh......oh hell, what the fuck were the cops thinking???
Did their supervisor say that morning that news was slow, the spotlight isnt on the department, go out and do something to garner media attention. Even better if it's little girls.... I mean come on!!! Man these podunk cops make life hard for us!
-
#14
Exactly Skip... It's complete crap.
From Youtube below.
Not exactly the perfect department he makes Austin out to be.
(Note... I'm not saying the guy below is guilty or innocent, just that the same shit happens everywhere)
Dec 8, 2007 - Gary Griffin can now return to the force after he won an appeal after losing his job as a police officer with the Austin TX police department due to excessive force. He had been an officer for 10 years previous. It is not known when he will be back on the streets.
A man was restrained and beaten by a Austin TX police officer last year and now officer Gary Griffin can return back to the force after losing his job. Griffin appealed the decision by acting chief Cathy Ellison of the Austin police department.
The chief made the decision to kick Griffin off of the force for six months after reviewing a police dash cam video that showed Griffin using excessive force.
It took a whole year but Griffin has finally won the appeal and he is returning back to work and that is not going over well with the family of Joseph Cruz. Cruz is the man in the video who was beaten.
Cruz was sleeping at a bus stop when Griffin tried to wake him up and that is when things got out of hand.
Before Griffin returns to the force he will have to see a psychiatrist.
The Austin City Council on Thursday approved a $55,000 settlement for the family of a mentally ill man who was beaten by an Austin police officer.
According to court documents, Griffin responded to a "person down" call in July 2006 and found Cruz, who has schizophrenia, asleep on a bus stop bench. When Cruz did not wake up, Griffin repeatedly hit him with his billy club and then punched Cruz in the face, breaking his nose, the documents said.
a great example of what I was talking about. The officers actions were out of line. Another officer brought it to the attention of the supervisor. The supervisor reported it and the officer was terminated after an investigation. The officer excercised his right to appeal and against our wishes he was reinstated by the arbitrator. The arbitrator is independant and the department is bound by civil service law to abide by the ruling. He has since bneen removed from patrol
THis is the conversation where Skip said I lied. My above comment was going off of memory and was not accurate. Skip pointed out the video was actually brought to the attention of the department because the prosecutor had a problem with it. That is what happened. However the gest of it is that this officer was completely wrong in his actions and I concurred with his firing.
-
Not considered part of the bet but just an interesting post that kind of sums up my position;
Cops should be held to a higher standard when it comes to honesty, integrity, work ethic, professionalism. Not that a vast majority of the public are not good people but ALL citizens who choose to wear the blue uniform should be those things without exception.
Me-
If a cop is shown to be lying, fire him or her, charge them with perjury if that is prosecutable. If a cop is shown to have used excessive force, fire them, charge them with whatever charges are appropriate to the incident. Where I think many of you part ways with me is in a more gray area. Often times, just by the nature of the job, cops are in precarious situations and have to deal with people where the outcome may not be all that pleasant for the citizen. Often times, cops are required to resolve situations and in doing so, outcomes aren't what was expected. Sometimes they screw up but they were doing their best in a bad situation, where there was often, given the set of circumstances, not much of a chance for success no matter how they handled it. In those situations, because I know how difficult it can be to make those decisions under pressure, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I am more understanding.
But for everytime someone says "I'm not saying all cops are bad, just most are worthless scum" I've said "I'm not saying all cops are good, just most of them" And I've never shied away from calling a duck a duck when some cop steps on his whanker or screws the pooch.
So on those occassions, when they say wait a minute, I'm only human"... it's probably because they are
-
#15
"very unfortunate for both sides. time to play monday morning quarterback.
Did not one cop have a less lethal shotgun or taser available? With all the deadly force cover, that would have been a no brainer to me. Why not put a patrol vehicle or cover between you and the armed subject if you feel you are in danger? Why shoot so many damn times? We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. I'd say when he is falling over the threat is stopped.
My guess is not one of those cops went there hoping to get to shoot an armed mentally disturbed black man. But I'm not impressed at all with their response. At least here, this scenario is not at all uncommon. Been there done that at least a dozen times myself so it really concerns me that it "appears" their options were limited to drop the knife or we kill you.
It is very likely this will be ruled justifiable because he had a knife and though it wasn't clear to me, he was likely moving towards an officer. However, if the department doesn't address the tactical/training issues going forward, I'd be very surprised. I'd also be surprised if there wasn't violations of policy in this response which would be handled administratively when the smoke clears.
-
I would think public safety would be of concern to you
Not when you needlessly override civil liberties (not you as in you specifically).
-
Tu. I wasn't going to hold you to the bet because in spite of our differences in our opinions on police stuff, I usually enjoy the banter but after reading one of your comments on another thread.. I guess we'll see you back here around May 28th. ;)
-
Not when you needlessly override civil liberties (not you as in you specifically).
Skip, agreed. Police shouldn't needlessly override civil liberties
-
Skip, agreed. Police shouldn't needlessly override civil liberties
::)
When you can proffer a logical and reasonable need to support your claim let me know.
-
::)
When you can proffer a logical and reasonable need to support your claim let me know.
No, I'm with you. Police shouldn't needlessly or unlawfully do that
-
No, I'm with you. Police shouldn't needlessly or unlawfully do that
No, you're doing your normal child's argument. And to think you're a cop. ::)
Let's try it this way...can you show a true reasonable need, not the hypothetical maybe scenario that you offered?
-
No, you're doing your normal child's argument. And to think you're a cop. ::)
Let's try it this way...can you show a true reasonable need, not the hypothetical maybe scenario that you offered?
For those particular searches? No, I was not privvy to the information they may have had in order to come to that decision.
-
#6
"Glad you brought it up. During SXSW an event that brings in thousands of people from around the country, officers were placed on 12 hr shifts in various barricaded street locations on static posts. This officer violated policy by watching a DVD while on duty posted at a barricade. An unprofessional, stupid thing to do and he will likely be suspended for it when all is said and done. They pay us a lot, they expect a lot, and this officer did not meet the Departments expectations nor the public."
Where do you say he is wrong here?
You say he didn't meet expectations? That's not saying he's wrong. Sidestep.
#8
That cop really is a sadistic bully.
What these power craven union thugs in the pd don't grasp is that it is crap like this that will make those on the fence feel sympathy for some of these kids.
Maybe the next time this thug cop writes some bogus ticket or makes a false arrest to boost his bloated OT and pension, maybe, just, maybe, for once someone will pepper spray this thug till he coughes up blood.
"It's been our experience in dealing with similar protests that pepper spray is not the answer. The better option is to explain that they have to move, explain what will happen if they don't then calmly and methodically remove each person one by one. Had they skipped the pepper spray, it would have ended the same"
A "better option" is not saying he's wrong.
Sidestep.
#13
Police in Ga. shut down girls' lemonade stand
AP News ^ | 07/15/2011 | AP News
Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 3:49:27 PM by The Magical Mischief Tour
MIDWAY, Ga. (AP) -- Police in Georgia have shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls trying to save up for a trip to a water park, saying they didn't have a business license or the required permits.
Midway Police Chief Kelly Morningstar says police also didn't know how the lemonade was made, who made it or what was in it.
The girls had been operating for one day when Morningstar and another officer cruised by.
The girls needed a business license, peddler's permit and food permit to operate, even on residential property. The permits cost $50 a day or $180 per year.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Well uh..the cops...uh...there is an ordinance..uh....the girls should have...uh......oh hell, what the fuck were the cops thinking???
Did their supervisor say that morning that news was slow, the spotlight isnt on the department, go out and do something to garner media attention. Even better if it's little girls.... I mean come on!!! Man these podunk cops make life hard for us!
What the fuck does this even mean?
#15
"very unfortunate for both sides. time to play monday morning quarterback.
Did not one cop have a less lethal shotgun or taser available? With all the deadly force cover, that would have been a no brainer to me. Why not put a patrol vehicle or cover between you and the armed subject if you feel you are in danger? Why shoot so many damn times? We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. I'd say when he is falling over the threat is stopped.
My guess is not one of those cops went there hoping to get to shoot an armed mentally disturbed black man. But I'm not impressed at all with their response. At least here, this scenario is not at all uncommon. Been there done that at least a dozen times myself so it really concerns me that it "appears" their options were limited to drop the knife or we kill you.
It is very likely this will be ruled justifiable because he had a knife and though it wasn't clear to me, he was likely moving towards an officer. However, if the department doesn't address the tactical/training issues going forward, I'd be very surprised. I'd also be surprised if there wasn't violations of policy in this response which would be handled administratively when the smoke clears.
Another sidestep.
Now... I didn't agree to said bet.
I never said "You've got a bet", and we never made that "it's on statement". Pretty much sums up why this is here anyway, as I give straight forward answers and yours are full if mitigation and sidestepping having to have a real response.
However, as I said, I'm not responding to you again anyway after this anyway, so it doesn't matter.
That said. I will be happy to leave getbig for a month starting on May 1st.
-
I'm leaving because I choose to leave (It's not like anyone can force me off of an internet board)
Not because of a bet, which I didn't lose by the way. (I said 10 statements)
As my statements showed. You sidestepped every response and out of all of your responses you had may 3-4 where you actually plainly said the cop was wrong.
Feel free to have the 3rd party person take a look. Skip seems quite impartial, what does he think?
-
Eh... Fuck it. I'll go ahead and leave now.
PS. You still haven't won the bet and took you 2 days to find 14 statements which you even think are close to saying cops are wrong (which 60% were sidesteps and not real answers.
You are delusional and very out of touch with reality.
_______________________________________________________
-
I don't think he's ever just given an unqualified, 'they were wrong', but maybe and I just don't know.
Is that what you all are arguing?
-
I'm leaving because I choose to leave (It's not like anyone can force me off of an internet board)
Not because of a bet, which I didn't lose by the way. (I said 10 statements)
As my statements showed. You sidestepped every response and out of all of your responses you had may 3-4 where you actually plainly said the cop was wrong.
Feel free to have the 3rd party person take a look. Skip seems quite impartial, what does he think?
Your assessment of my responses are in error. To expect me to say the exact words "The officer is wrong" is ludicrous. When I say the officer violated policy and will disciplined and Im fine with that it means to the average person that I think the officer was wrong.
-
I'm leaving because I choose to leave (It's not like anyone can force me off of an internet board)
Not because of a bet, which I didn't lose by the way. (I said 10 statements)
As my statements showed. You sidestepped every response and out of all of your responses you had may 3-4 where you actually plainly said the cop was wrong.
Feel free to have the 3rd party person take a look. Skip seems quite impartial, what does he think?
Skip is about as impartial as O'reilly.. no offense skip but it isn't hard to show posts where you are pretty clear on your opinion of me
-
Where are your statements stating so?
Name one topic we have discussed here where you flat out said, "The police were WRONG."
You can't do that... You always have some mitigating circumstance or caveat.
You have NEVER plainly said, THOSE POLICE WERE WRONG.
NEVER.
You skirt the issue and sidestep constantly.
He said I ALWAYS side with the police. I said I didnt.. He said find ONE .. I found 15... we made a bet... he lost
-
First off... I will be happy to bet you 30 days away from getbig. It's not like it's that big a deal to me either way, with the caveat that you ABSOLUTELY PLAINLY STATE. "THE COPS WERE WRONG" on 10 different instances. None of this bullshit you type out where you give all of these if, buts, and shit like that.
You wanna step to that bet?
I have no problem leaving getbig for the next 30 days because I have tons of other shit to do with my life.
You think that's even a wager?
I think that's where he said we got a bet.. but yeah..he didnt say "AGNOSTIC WE HAVE A BET" but a reasonable person..reading that.....
-
Skip is about as impartial as O'reilly.. no offense skip but it isn't hard to show posts where you are pretty clear on your opinion of me
I'm not sure what you mean. I have a very high opinion of you.
(http://i1.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/lens5278282_1300668762Pinocchio-movie.jpg)
Whilst we have had some minor differences of opinion,
(http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/fun107.com/files/2012/12/nose_grows-300x221.png)
I know that you always offer a fair, unbiased, equitable opinion on all of the topics in which we debate.
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002662797/4516274664_pinocchiomeg1_300x299_answer_4_xlarge.jpeg)
-
^^
Well thought out and executed response there Skip.. Not bad... Not bad at all.. ;)
-
Agnostic007,
I'm not saying you're a liar, ...but posting written text in support or against, doesn't really cut it imo.
I think you should be made to post the clear quote references with clickable links from the actual previous conversations, so someone can go back to the actual argument., not just cut & paste. Verifiable links from within past conversations, for the sake of integrity, ya know. :)
-
Agnostic007,
I'm not saying you're a liar, ...but posting written text in support or against, doesn't really cut it imo.
I think you should be made to post the clear quote references with clickable links from the actual previous conversations, so someone can go back to the actual argument., not just cut & paste. Verifiable links from within past conversations, for the sake of integrity, ya know. :)
24K, that would probably be something to consider if Tu wasn't involved in those conversations and knows exactly where they came from. With few exceptions they were off the police state thread he and 3333 post frequently. If he has a question about any of the examples I posted I would go through the trouble of putting more effort into it. The point is, it is clear I don't ALWAYS side with the police. That was simply a ludicrous statement that he ended up paying for in a 30 day time out.
-
24K, that would probably be something to consider if Tu wasn't involved in those conversations and knows exactly where they came from. With few exceptions they were off the police state thread he and 3333 post frequently. If he has a question about any of the examples I posted I would go through the trouble of putting more effort into it. The point is, it is clear I don't ALWAYS side with the police. That was simply a ludicrous statement that he ended up paying for in a 30 day time out.
OK fair enough. I haven't been following the Police State thread, and if Tu isn't objecting I won't either.